Power point
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Power point

on

  • 763 views

science

science

Statistics

Views

Total Views
763
Views on SlideShare
763
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • For Child Growth and Development, my roommate, Sylvia Tellez, and I conducted a research study regarding Moral Development: Does gender make a difference? We based our study on the theories of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan.
  • (wikipedia)
  • In 1958, Lawrence Kohlberg began outlining his stage theory in his doctoral dissertation. Here is how is stage theory now stands. In the preconventional level, individuals are unfamiliar with the totality of common norms/standards of society. Within this level are 2 stages: Stage one: During this stage the concern lies strictly in an unchanging set of rules and laws which are always right. Individuals follow the norms of society, but only to avoid punishment Stage 2: Individuals in stage two now realize that the set of rules they blindly followed in stage one are subject to change. Morality is relative insofar as rules can be changed in order to attain what’s best for oneself. There’s an idea of fair exchange In the conventional level, individuals are now aware and are abiding by the norms/standards of society. Again in this level there are 2 stages: Stage 3: Stage three is highly dependant on public approval. In this stage, Right is only based on how others would judge your specific actions. Motives for decision making and character traits are examined here. Stage 4: There is an emphasis on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so social order is maintained Perspective changes to society as a whole Not only does the child say a certain action is right or wrong, they explore the reasons why Postconventional individuals understand the morality behind the accepted norms of society. Stage 5: There is a deep focus on agreements or pacts as well as respecting laws in order to keep society functioning properly. Stage five language also includes basic human rights including life and liberty. Stage 6: Involves universal principles of justice that apply to all people We treat the particular dilemma through unbiased and impartial eyes We can only reach this stage by looking at a situation through someone else’s eyes According to Kohlberg, these stages are universal, hierarchical, and have an invariant sequence. However, they are qualitatively different with each person.
  • Stage one in Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development is the obedience and punishment orientation. During this stage the concern lies strictly in an unchanging set of rules and laws which are always right. Individuals follow the norms of society, but only to avoid punishment This stage re-iterates preconventional thought which stipulates that individuals are not fully engaged in the conventions of their society.
  • Stage two is entitled individualism and exchange. Individuals in stage two now realize that the set of rules they blindly followed in stage one are subject to change. Morality is relative insofar as rules can be changed in order to attain what’s best for oneself. In other words, whatever is best for me is the right decision – it is essentially the idea of fair exchange. I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Punishment is only a risk not a certainty.
  • Stage three begins Kohlberg’s idea of conventional thought in which individuals conform their actions with the norms of society. It is also thought of as the “Good boy/nice girl” orientation Stage three is highly dependant on public approval. In this stage, Right is only based on how others would judge your specific actions. Motives and grounds for decision-making are also carefully examined in this stage.
  • There is an emphasis on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so social order is maintained Perspective changes to society as a whole Not only does the child say a certain action is right or wrong, they explore the reasons why
  • Stage 5 considers social contract and individual rights. There is a deep focus on agreements or pacts as well as respecting laws in order to keep society functioning properly. Stage five language also includes basic human rights including life and liberty.
  • Involves universal principles of justice that apply to all people We treat the particular dilemma through unbiased and impartial eyes We can only reach this stage by looking at a situation through someone else’s eyes
  • (Read slide verbatim) (Wikipedia)
  • Gilligan, a student of Kohlberg, feels that his stage theory is flawed in the fact that he studied only boys. Her main argument against Kohlberg is that males and females have a different “orientation” or “perspective” about life, resulting in differing mentalities in moral decision-making. She identifies boys as having an orientation toward justice. In the book Mapping the Moral Domain (p. 73), Gilligan defines a justice orientation as that which “draws attention to the problems of inequality and oppression and holds up an ideal of reciprocity and equal respect.” For Gilligan, this orientation is typical of men and is the basis for Kohlberg’s six stage theory. Women, on the other hand, have a care orientation which “draws attention to problems of detachment or abandonment and holds up an ideal of attention and response to need.” She feels that women gravitate toward the concepts of feelings, needs, and care. Gilligan states that “Two moral injunctions – not to treat others unfairly and not to turn away from someone in need – capture these different concerns.”
  • On the basis of her understanding of the care orientation, Gilligan reworked Kohlberg’s stage theory into a simpler form. Rather than having six stages, she focuses on the three levels of Kohlberg’s theory but slightly redefines them. -See slide (st. olaf)
  • As we read the works of Kohlberg and Gilligan, we formulated a few questions which became the basis for our study…
  • (Read Slide Verbatim)
  • Read slide verbatim
  • The first dilemma given to the children was the Heinz Dilemma, the most famous of Kohlberg’s dilemmas. This dilemma basically states that a man’s wife is dying and he only has half the amount of money necessary to buy the drug that will save her. He tried every legal means to get enough money but could not. The druggist refuses to sell the medicine at a discount price at the risk of losing profit. Consequently, the man considers stealing the drug.
  • The children were asked the following questions regarding the Heinz dilemma: (read slide) These questions were formulated by Kohlberg, but Gilligan’s response is that males and females understand the question differently. According to Gilligan: The boy thinks of it as “ should Heinz steal the drug?” The girl asks herself “should Heinz steal the drug?” – hoping to find another solution. Males and females understand the question differently.
  • The second dilemma given dealt with a boy who desperately wanted to go to camp. His dad denied him the money needed, but said if he earned the money by himself he could go. When the boy finally had enough money and was about to go to camp, the dad told him he needed the money for a fishing trip. The boy, Joe, is unsure if he should give his dad the money.
  • We asked the children these questions about Joe and his father: (read slide)
  • Finally, the theft dilemma described two brothers who were fleeing town because they were in trouble. They needed money and each did something different to get it. One brother, Karl, broke the law by robbing a store. The other, Bob, lied to and manipulated an old man to get money by saying he was sick and needed the money for an operation. The man loaned him the money, but in reality, Bob wasn’t sick at all. The brothers then left town with the money.
  • The Theft Dilemma basically posed two characters who both did something that could be considered wrong. On this basis, we asked the children:
  • After we collected the students’ responses, we compared their answers to rubrics we created prior to our research study. When creating the rubrics we tried to identify key phrases that might be given by the children in their respective stages. For example…
  • When we identified the key phrases for each specific stage of development we allotted one point to stage one, two points to stage two, three to stage three, and so on. After the points had been allotted, an average was taken and rounded to the nearest stage. With this average the corresponding level of development was assigned as well. For example…If a child’s average was stage one, he would fall into the preconventional level of development, according to Kohlberg. You can see on this chart that we found the average for every child in each dilemma. We then found the overall average of each child.
  • Now we’d like to share some of the responses we received that undoubtedly pointed to each specific stage. Here are some responses that were clearly stage one: When asked “Should Heinz steal the drug?”, one girl responded: “No. Because stealing is bad.” Does the father have a right to tell Joe to give him the money? Does giving the money have anything to do with being a good son?
  • Similarly, here were some responses that fit stage 2: When asked, “Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug?”…. Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?
  • Should Joe refuse to give his father the money? Is the fact that the father promised the most important thing in the situation? Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug?
  • The single stage 5 response we got was:
  • Now we’ll move on to the examination of data using Gilligan’s perspective. The rubric for evaluating responses according to Gilligan was much more difficult to prepare regarding specific phrases. Therefore, we simply looked for patterns in or the overarching idea of each response. For instance, we simply saw to whom the statement was referenced…(point out language column)
  • Here is the table that shows what level of development the children were in as evaluated by our Gilligan rubric. As was done with Kohlberg, we found the average level of response for each child. Some children had an equal number of responses from two levels, as is indicated on the table. If you note the last two columns, you will see the number of questions (out of eleven) which received higher than preconventional ratings from each child. 28 out of the 88 responses from the girls were at least conventional, with two of Rebekah’s responses being postconventional. For the boys, 29 of the 77 responses were conventional. As you can see, one boy and one girl were conventional overall according to Gilligan’s scale. Basically, both genders were nearly equal in the number of preconventional and conventional responses.
  • Just to give you an idea of how we categorized responses on Gilligan’s scale since we had a less detailed rubric for her than for Kohlberg, here are some responses we received that were clearly preconventional. They focus on how the person making the decision will be affected afterward and/or they are done in the interest of what the person wants or needs: Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? Why is it right or wrong? Which brother was more wrong? Why would you say that? Is the fact that Joe earned the money himself important in this situation? Why or why not?
  • Some conventional responses were: Should Heinz steal the drug? Should Joe refuse to give his father the money? Does giving the money have anything to do with being a good son? As you can see, these responses focus on the relationships between people and the ideals of self sacrifice and goodness.
  • Finally, one girl gave two responses that were postconventional. They dealt with truth as it applies to all people. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? Why is it right or wrong? Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for a stranger? Why or why not?
  • Stephanie explain
  • In conclusion…We were wrong. (read slide)
  • Looking back on our research study, we now see some possible reasons why our hypothesis was incorrect. First...
  • Some limitations we had that may have affected our results were:
  • (read verbatim points 1 & 2) One point Kohlberg made in his Essays on Moral Development , leads us to the last question (read question): Kohlberg states that “…the common assumption of the cultural relativity of ethics, on which almost all contemporary social scientific theorizing about morality is based, is an error.” (Essays on Moral Dev. p. 105) We are left wondering, is he correct in this assertion?
  • Lastly, we felt it necessary to see where Kohlberg and Gilligan lie on the nature vs. nurture line. We placed Kohlberg more toward the nature side, yet still close to Piaget because Kohlberg’s studies were based off of Piaget’s research. Kohlberg’s placement more toward the nature side is due to his reinforcement that our development is a natural occurrence which is merely brought to life by our environment. Gilligan is placed closer to the nurture side because she stresses the role played by a mother (as she is typically the care-giver in early years) in the upbringing and development of children. The difference between the way girls relate to their mothers and the way boys relate to theirs causes a difference in the overall mindset of both genders. Gilligan talks about the achievement of femininity and masculinity in relation to attachment to and separation from the mother. The ideas of men and women’s roles in society also play into this. As a result, development is affected greatly by the environment.

Power point Power point Presentation Transcript

  • Objectives College students wanting to learn about theories of moral development will be able to: Outline the stage theories of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan Tell the difference between a justice orientation and a care orientation Describe the study conducted by Stephanie Cain and Sylvia Tellez regarding Kohlberg and Gilligan’s theories.
  • Moral Development Does gender make a difference? Vs. Lawrence Kohlberg Carol Gilligan Online Biography Online Biography
  • Lawrence Kohlberg Born October 25, 1927 in Bronxville, NY Obtained his bachelor’s degree after one year of study at the University of Chicago in 1948 Earned his doctoral degree in 1958 from the same university after writing a dissertation outlining stage theory of moral development Taught at the University of Chicago (beginning in 1962) and Harvard University (beginning in 1968) Performed cross-cultural studies of moral development in Israel and Belize
  • Kohlberg’s Stage Theory Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights Stage 6: Universal Principles Preconventional { {Conventional {Postconventional
  • Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation There is a strict set of rules that must always be followed The ideas of punishment and permission are key Preconventional thought expressed
  • Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange Now there is not one right way of doing things; everything is relative Fair exchange policy The role of punishment weakens
  • Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships “Good Boy/Nice Girl” Orientation People should live up to the expectations of community Characters’ traits and motives are examined
  • Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order There is an emphasis on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so social order is maintained Perspective changes to society as a whole Not only does the child say a certain action is right or wrong, they explore the reasons why
  • Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights An individual’s moral judgment is motivated by community respect, respecting social order, and respect for legally/determined laws Thoughts consider the rights and values a society must uphold
  • Stage 6: Universal Principles Involves universal principles of justice that apply to all people We treat the particular dilemma through unbiased and impartial eyes We can only reach this stage by looking at a situation through someone else’s eyes
  • Carol Gilligan Born in 1936 Student of Lawrence Kohlberg Obtained an B.A. in English Literature, a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology, and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology Has taught at Harvard University, University of Cambridge, and New York University. She currently teaches at the University of Cambridge. Focused most of her studies on gender-related development
  • Gilligan’s View of Kohlberg Justice orientation/perspective “draws attention to problems of inequality and oppression and holds up an ideal of reciprocity and equal respect.” Care orientation/perspective “draws attention to problems of detachment or abandonment and holds up an ideal of attention and response to need.” Gilligan states that “Two moral injunctions – not to treat others unfairly and not to turn away from someone in need – capture these different concerns.”
  • Gilligan’s Stages of Development (relating to the Ethics of Care) •Preconventional – Striving for individual survival •Conventional – Good things come out of self-sacrifice •Postconventional – Principle of nonviolence toward oneself and others { Transition from selfishness to responsibility to others {Transition from goodness to truth
  • When given moral dilemmas, do both groups of children, male and female, follow Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of development? Is there a difference in orientation in moral decision making between the two genders as Carol Gilligan suggests? Are females more inclined to choose care over justice and males justice over care? Our Problem:
  • Our Hypothesis: We believe that girls are more inclined to make moral decisions based on ideas of care and relationships, whereas boys will base their decisions on justice.
  • We selected three moral dilemmas often used in Kohlberg studies to present to 15 fifth grade students (8 girls and 7 boys) at Holy Family of Nazareth school. Before using the dilemmas, we made sure we felt both care and justice responses could be given to each. Each dilemma was presented to the children with a series of questions for them to answer. Our Study
  • “The Heinz Dilemma” In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
  • 1.Should Heinz steal the drug? 1a. Why or why not? 2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? 2a. Why is it right or wrong? 3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? 3a. Why or why not? “Heinz Dilemma”
  • “Dad Dilemma” Joe is a fourteen-year-old boy who wanted to go to camp very much. His father promised him he could go if he saved up the money for it himself. So Joe worked hard at his paper route and saved up the forty dollars it cost to go to camp, and a little more besides. But just before camp was going to start, his father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go on a special fishing trip, and Joe's father was short of the money it would cost. So he told Joe to give him the money he had saved from the paper route. Joe didn't want to give up going to camp, so he thinks of refusing to give his father the money.
  • 1.Should Joe refuse to give his father the money? 1a. Why or why not? 2. Does the father have the right to tell Joe to give him the money? 2a. Why or why not? 3. Does giving the money have anything to do with being a good son? 3a. Why or why not? “Dad Dilemma”
  • “Theft Dilemma” Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.
  • Which brother was more wrong? Why would you say that? What do you think is the worst thing about cheating the old man? Why is that the worst thing? “Theft Dilemma”
  • Kohlberg Rubric Defined by Kohlberg Statements we expect to receive with regard to a given dilemma Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation •Concern on a fixed set of unchanging rules •We worry about what authorities will permit and punish •Punishment=wrong •“It’s bad/wrong to…” •“You’ll get punished”/ “You won’t get punished” •“It’s a sin to…”/ “It is against the Commandments…” Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange •Everything is now relative; punishments are now a risk •Individuals are seeking favors •Fair exchange policy •“Just because one person thinks it’s right, someone else might not” •“This person may think it’s good/right for him” •“It was unfair”/ “The fair way would have been…” Stage 3: Interpersonal Relationships •“Good Boy/Nice Girl” Orientation •Now there is a look at motives of each party involved •The children now see the multi-dimensional aspect to a problem •Character traits are described •“ This person had the right idea” •“His intentions were good, but…” •This person was “greedy, selfish” or “caring and loving” Stage 4: Maintaining a Social Order •Emphasis on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so social order is maintained •Not only do we say it’s wrong, but we explore the reasons why it is so •“Stealing or breaking the law is never right, even though it is understandable why the person did it” •“What would happen if we all did that” •“It’s against the law to…because…” Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights •Stress on basic rights and democratic procedures to change unfair laws •Strong language is used; the idea of right to life •“The person has a right to live” •“Laws are social contracts that everyone agrees to uphold” Stage 6: Universal Principles •Look at problems through all eyes- clear concept of universal principles •We decided no child would reach this stage at age 10 or 11
  • Kohlberg Overall Results Name Gender Alex F Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Becky F Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Chichi F Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Jackie F Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 3 Conventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Katherine F Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Kelsey F Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Nallelie F Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Rebekah F Stage 3 Conventional Stage 3 Conventional Stage 3 Conventional Stage 3 Conventional Chris M Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Craig M Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Joseph M Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Keith M Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Kevin M Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 3 Conventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Montana M Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Sergio M Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 2 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Stage 1 Preconventional Dad DilemmaHeinz Dilemma Theft Dilemma Overall Kohlberg Stage
  • Stage 1 (Preconventional) “No. Because stealing is bad.” (female) “Yes. Because he is his dad and you should obey his dad.” (male) “Yes. So he could not get grounded.” (male)
  • Stage 2 (Preconventional) “Yes. So his wife could live a longer life.” (female) “No. Cause his father could give it to him with more” (female) “NO. IT’S HIS MONEY.” (female)
  • Stage 3 (Conventional) “No. Because he’s your father. Think of all the things he has done for you.” (male) “Yes. Because Joe was counting on his father and looking forward to the camping trip.” (female) “His wife is dying and the guy’s a jerk.” (female)
  • Stage 5 (Postconventional) “Yes. It dose not mater who it is all that maters is it is a life of a person.” (female)
  • Gilligan Rubric Concept Language Preconventional Actions are done with intent of helping themselves survive or feel better. Reference to the feelings/well-being of the person making the decision in a dilemma. Conventional Willing to give of themselves for the goodness of others. Words such as "help" and reference to the feelings/well-being of people other than the person making the decision Postconventional Want to prevent harm to themselves and others; everyone is a person. Weighing the safety and well-being of everyone involved in the dilemma
  • Preconventional Responses “It is wrong because you might save your wife but the gilt for stealing would haunt you forever.” (male) “Both of them are wrong. Karl brock one of the comaments ther forth he will go to Hell. Bob soled and ther forth braking two comamemnts. I think Bob is worst.” (female) “Yes. Because he wants to go to camp.” (male)
  • Conventional Responses “Yes. Because he is helping his wife.” (female) “No. Because he’s your father. Think of all the things he has done for you.” (male) “Yes. Because if he gives him the money then he would do a good thing.” (female)
  • Postconventional Responses “It is right because it is to save a life.” (female) “Yes. It dose not mater who it is all that maters is that it is a life of a person.” (female)
  • Kohlberg and Gilligan Compared Name Gender Overall Gilligan Stage Kohlberg or Gilligan? Alex F Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Becky F Stage 2 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Chichi F Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Jackie F Stage 2 Preconventional Preconventional/ Conventional Equal Katherine F Stage 2 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Kelsey F Stage 2 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Nallelie F Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Rebekah F Stage 3 Conventional Conventional Equal Chris M Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional/ Conventional Gilligan Craig M Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional/ Conventional Gilligan Joseph M Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional/ Conventional Gilligan Keith M Stage 2 Preconventional Conventional Gilligan Kevin M Stage 2 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Montana M Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Sergio M Stage 1 Preconventional Preconventional Equal Overall Kohlberg Stage
  • Our hypothesis ended up being incorrect. Through our study, we found that boys and girls rated almost equally on both Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s scales. If anything, (though even this was questionable) the boys slightly favored the care orientation – not the girls, as we predicted. Conclusion
  • Possible reasons for our incorrect judgment: Males and females may differ in orientation at different points in their life. At this point, they just happen to be the same. Most of the studies we read about Gilligan involved women in college, not children. If moral development is related to cognitive development, 5th grade students may be mostly equal in levels of cognition.
  • Limitations Written responses rather than verbal Difficulty interpreting data Only using one age group of children
  • Questions we have after our study: Do males and females differ in orientation at different ages? Does cognitive development make a difference in care or justice orientation? How does the differing role of females in society today versus during Kohlberg’s studies affect moral development? Or does the cultural role of women affect development at all? Would the children have answered differently if they had been shown an image such as the clip art on our PowerPoint?
  • NATURE NURTURE Rousseau LockeVygotsky Piaget GilliganKohlberg Erikson WherewouldKohlberg and Gilligan fall on the Nature vs. Nurture line?